Politics > Politics-USA > COURTS ADMITTING LICENSING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL court ruled against Marx's 4th plank!!!
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Raymond Karczewski" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2004 11:33:20 AM |
| Object: |
COURTS ADMITTING LICENSING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL court ruled against Marx's 4th plank!!! |
COURTS ADMITTING LICENSING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL court ruled
against Marx's 4th plank!!!
Tuesday, June 08, 2004 12:47 PM
Pam @ wrote:
Raymond Karczewski wrote:
p: > Hi Ray,
p: > How are you, your daughter, and Anita doing? Have not
emailed you in a long time, my husband has been very ill but he
is getting much better. I did not know if you receive A Voice
For Children emails therefore I did not know if you had received
this info, I wanted to make sure you got the information. Take
care. God Bless. Pamela
Hello Pam.
rk: It is good to hear from you. Wondered what happened when you
fell out of sight. Glad to hear your husband is getting better.
We are still plugging away at our end and still under attack.
However, it is becoming more bizarre with each day that passes.
Read what's going on with JOCO Sheriff's bulletin board "ASK A
COP," http://www.cyberhouse.org/public/phpbb2/index.php and JOCO
Sheriffs watch. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JOCO_SheriffsWatch/
Such insanity. Read my latest links on
http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialchst.htm You can't tell the
players without a scorecard. However, there appears to be a real
scandal brewing from these boards. It's time to clean up the
courthouse and JOCO politics in general. Pam, thanks for the
article. Give my regards to your husband. Your voice has been
missed.
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: A Voice for Children
To: A Voice for Children
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 11:21 PM
Subject: COURTS ADMITTING LICENSING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL court
ruled against Marx's 4th plank!!!
From:
Plank #4 calls for the confiscation of property of rebels.
READ ON!---to bottom
ALL license laws violate Art. 1, Sec. 10 USC:
"No state shall pass any law impairing the obligations of
contracts." This precludes all license and zoning laws as well as
legal tender laws.
If I contract to remove your appendix, the state has no business
demanding that I have a license. If most people think a surgeon
should be licensed, then they need an amendment to the United
States Constitution.
If I contract to take you somewhere in my car or to sell you real
estate, the state has no business demanding licences that impair
the obligations of my contract.
If I contract for you to deliver potatoes and you fail to
deliver, I'd sue you for potatoes. Judge has no business ordering
you to give me legal tender. I can't eat legal tender!
License laws were never intended to protect us,
they were desgned to control us. The patients of
licensed doctors ALL DIE. Half of the clients of
licensed lawyers lose their suits. Licensed pilots
crash their planes and licensed ship captains sink
their ships. Licensed drivers kill 40,000 a year.
Licensed Realtors list houses that never sell.
If I get convicted of any felony such as state
income tax, I'd lose my license to sell real estate.
I was convicted, won new trial on appeal and was
offered a plea bargain with no jail time. I refused the
plea bargain because I would have lost my license
and CASE WAS DISMISSED!!!
If any doctor would cure all or most cancer patients, he
would be branded as a quack and stripped of his license.
OR if he refused to waive his rights on 1040 forms, he/she
would lose their license.
Request: Who Cntrols The Medical Industry from:
READ ON!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Court strikes down licensing laws - admitting no authority, no
lawful enforcement.... all they have seized has been stolen -
cars, children, homes, estates..... the state is committing
statutory extortion, racketeering, exploiting us with no law -
stop giving them any money or information anymore.... now we see
it now we stop it....
Please go to our website www.avoiceforchildren.com and put "bills
of attainder" into the search engine on the front page and read
about the law and how this is totally unconstitutional.... it IS
changing, people confronting it and not cooperating with anything
until the state supports evidence of a crime..... otherwise they
have NO authority to intervene in people's lives or come onto
their property 99% of the time..... there has to be a real crime
and the court is acknowledging it here.... it all has to be
confronted.... the issues have to be raised and the people are
doing it until now they are unable to defend what they are
doing.... ALL licensing has to stop, ALL licensing of cars and
the state owing titles, ALL is unconstitutional and does not
apply to freeborn people - believe it or not they say we
VOLUNTEER for it ALL..... STOP VOLUNTEERING - it is TOTALLY
CORRUPT !!!
pamela gaston
www.avoiceforchildren.com
From: "Donald T Braun" <jd.consultants@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Court strikes down licensing laws
Court strikes down licensing laws
By Sara Jean Green
Seattle Times Eastside bureau
The state Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling yesterday that
could mean thousands of people whose driver's licenses were
suspended won't be prosecuted.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down two state statutes as
unconstitutional because the laws don't provide for an
administrative hearing or an appeal procedure and thus deny
individuals due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
At issue is the state Department of Licensing's (DOL) lack of a
formal hearing or appeal process for people whose licenses were
suspended after they didn't appear in court or pay traffic
tickets.
Yesterday, state and city attorneys were scrambling to understand
the full implications of the ruling. In Seattle, the ruling could
have serious ramifications and a huge financial impact because of
the city's controversial impound policies, which the City Council
recently voted to scrap for drivers cited for third-degree
license suspensions.
Drivers arrested for third-degree license suspensions typically
have their licenses lifted because they failed to pay tickets for
minor traffic violations, such as speeding. In contrast, drivers
arrested for first- and second-degree license suspensions are
those whose licenses were suspended for being habitual traffic
offenders, driving while intoxicated, reckless driving and other
serious traffic offenses.
"It seems to me that any (third-degree) license suspension in the
state of Washington is currently unconstitutional because it
doesn't comply with due process," said Donna Tucker, one of two
Bellevue attorneys who argued before the Supreme Court to have
the statutes struck.
Potential for error
The case was brought before the Supreme Court after the city of
Redmond sought direct review of a King County District Court
decision to dismiss charges against two men, Jason Wilson and
Dean Moore, for driving with suspended licenses.
Wilson's license was suspended for failing to deal with a
speeding ticket, and Moore's was lifted for failing to resolve a
citation for driving without liability insurance. A
district-court judge concluded the suspensions didn't comply with
due process because DOL failed to provide the opportunity for an
administrative hearing and so dismissed the charges.
In writing for the majority, Justice Richard Sanders said the
statutes "are contrary to the guaranty of due process because
they do not provide adequate procedural safeguards to ensure
against the erroneous deprivation of a driver's interest in the
continued use and possession of his or her driver's license."
There is substantial potential for error in DOL decisions to
revoke a driver's license, especially given that DOL issues some
300,000 suspension notices a year based on information from the
courts, Sanders wrote. When a driver receives notice his or her
license is to be suspended, the individual has 30 days to resolve
the issue in court.
"He or she is not, however, offered any procedure to contest the
suspension other than being instructed by the notice to resolve
the matter with the court," Sanders wrote. "The public is left to
its own devices to secure a timely hearing from a court to
reverse the error before the suspension takes effect."
Burden on DOL
But in a seven-page dissenting opinion written by Justice Bobbe
Bridge, four justices argued that just because there's a
potential for error, no evidence was provided to show a pattern
of erroneous license suspensions.
The dissenting justices also pointed out that requiring DOL to
give an administrative hearing to anyone whose license is
suspended would require vast public resources for the staff, time
and space to conduct such hearings.
"The majority seizes upon the scant record in these cases to
answer a question that has not been raised by any party and in so
doing stretches the requirements of due process beyond precedent
and common sense establishing no clear benefit for the licensees
and burdening an administrative system designed by the
Legislature to provide swift determination for the protection of
the motoring public," Bridge wrote.
Gerald Anderson, an assistant attorney general who advised DOL on
the case, said his office is still trying to digest the court's
ruling. Because the court struck down the statutes, it's unlikely
DOL can devise an administrative remedy, he said, adding "it's
too early to speculate what legislative remedies are possible."
A Redmond city prosecutor and a DOL spokesman would not comment
yesterday, both saying they needed more time to analyze the
decision.
Financial impact
The impact could be huge for Seattle, which has seized, towed and
held almost 5,000 vehicles a year from drivers with third-degree
license suspensions. Roughly 30 percent of those vehicles are
scheduled for auction because their owners could not pay fees,
fines and storage charges. But the city doesn't track how many
are sold, said Kathryn Harper, spokeswoman for the City
Attorney's Office.
Some lawyers believe the city faces potential financial liability
for vehicles seized under its Operation Impound program.
"I think a strong argument can be made that all seizures were
unlawful and drivers deserve compensation. This would be
additional legal basis for that argument," said Lisa Daugaard, a
public defender and outspoken critic of Seattle's impound law.
The number of drivers who might seek compensation, the amount
they might want and the validity of their claims remain to be
seen.
But a very rough estimate of $10 million in damages is
reasonable, said Adam Berger, an attorney who has brought a
class-action lawsuit against the city's former policy, which was
in effect from 2000 to late 2002. After that, police officers
exercised discretion but still impounded the vehicles of 80
percent of the drivers they cited for third-degree license
suspensions.
Berger's estimate is based on the premise that there could be
10,000 drivers seeking compensation, with claims of about $1,000
each, on average.
Meanwhile, impound opponents who pushed the City Council to dump
the controversial impound law in a 6-2 vote two weeks ago said
the court's decision validated their arguments.
"It's a welcome decision as far as I'm concerned," said
Councilwoman Jean Godden, who co-sponsored the ordinance to
repeal the impound policy.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels signed the ordinance into law
yesterday.
Sara Jean Green: 206-515-5654 or . Times
staff reporter Bob Young contributed to this report.
Copyright ) 2004 The Seattle Times Company
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001947257_licenses04e.ht
ml
_______________________________________________
*************************************************************
Resist Not Tyrannical Government
BOYCOTT IT!!
Raymond Karczewski http://www.arkenterprises.com
**************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
